Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
431
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

431 Views
Message 1 of 110

@umbarch64 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

@rk9152  You are not wrong....however...the taxes passed on may not reflect the actual costs a jurisdictions tax base pays for producing a product. You with me there?  IF that's the case, that 'excess' cost will be paid by someone else in the tax chain. It doesn't get passed on. That's a subsidy of sorts, even if it is not called that. 

 

Your point appears self-evident and expandable.  It isn't.  Accepting it literally would lead to a false conclusion that all taxes are reflected in the price of the product.  They are not.   Again...you are not wrong.  

 

Regarding complexity...complexity facilitates manipulation.  It should not be so, but it is. Laws and credits and exemptions et al are complex for purpose...none of it good.


I agree with a lot of the above but not the part of taxes not included in the price. Once established, a company has cash inflow and cash outflow. The outflow (including taxes) is funded by inflow (that paid by the consumer). I can't imagine where else the money comes from

 

This is a good exercise.  Let's try this. The end consumer pays all the taxes associated with a product he uses in the price of the product.  Agreed.  

 

The end consumer almost certainly does not live in all the jurisdiction[s] dropping a tax into the cost he personally pays for the product. He must be paying a pass thru tax assessed ostensibly to pay costs for fire, roads, sewer, water, schools etc....the infrastructure stuff...in a jurisdiction[s] not his own. We've agreed the product producer pays none of this in any case, even though he uses them to support and operate his business.

 

Now assume the product itself is not sold at all in the producers home jurisdiction so none of the tax collected at product sale goes into the home jurisdiction coffers for their own infrastructure...the taxes actually go elsewhere. Where would that be?  Who actually pays for the infrastructure required to produce the product? 

 

See...I have trouble following myself through all this stuff.  I can only imagine how it must be for someone trying to follow what I'm trying to say.  I think I'm mostly right, but I sure could be mistaken about some stuff...and that's fer dang sure.

 

From the start my only point was that the consumer actually pays the supposed "corporate taxes". We appear to be in agreement on that and I wonder about other posters who disagreed earlier.

 

Now, as to the distribution to tax - you're right. I pay State taxes. Those taxes build and maintain State highways, most of which I never use. That's just the way it works. If you are looking for a way for companies pay "their fair share", I guess we will have to find a way for all residents to pay "their fair share".

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
431
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
443
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

443 Views
Message 2 of 110

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote "I can't imagine how you can get them to "pay their fair share" since whatever they pay actually is passed along to the consumer via the cost of the goods or services. If you have any ideas as to how to do the fair share thing - let's talk about it."

 
Since companies have been extended the same rights as a "person" their fair share is the same as a person's fair share.
 
Irrelevant. We are not talking about their political status. We are talking about the source of the money they use to pay taxes - the customer.

 


It is not irrelevant when you are forcing consumers to support companies they would not otherwise support.  It is also not irrelevant because you asked how they could be taxed fairly, and that is what I gave you as an answer. 


If I understand your point you think it is O.K. for the customers of a particular company to pay the taxes for that company but not non-customers. Is that it? If so, I don't see the distinction. If all corporate taxes are paid by customers (my only point from the get-go), it sorta evens out.


Yes to your first point.  For your second, I don't think it does equal out, it depends on the percentage of the population that chooses to do business with each company.  The only fair thing is for a company to pay a fair amount (whatever that is determined to be), charge whatever price they need to and leave it up to the customer as to whether or not they want to buy at that price.


If all customers of all companies pay all the corporate taxes, I can't see where it doesn't all even out.

 

If all companies offering the same product have their taxes paid by their customers - where do you see the customer with some sort of choice?


The choice is whether or not they will purchase, if they really need it and how much they really need.  That is a personal choice.  Just by the numbers it does not even out, I don't know why you think all is equal.  The  othher option is to raise everyone's taxes to make up for a companies free ride.  Last I looked, you did not have a choice as whether or not you were paying your taxes.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
443
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
446
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

446 Views
Message 3 of 110

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote "I can't imagine how you can get them to "pay their fair share" since whatever they pay actually is passed along to the consumer via the cost of the goods or services. If you have any ideas as to how to do the fair share thing - let's talk about it."

 
Since companies have been extended the same rights as a "person" their fair share is the same as a person's fair share.
 
Irrelevant. We are not talking about their political status. We are talking about the source of the money they use to pay taxes - the customer.

 


It is not irrelevant when you are forcing consumers to support companies they would not otherwise support.  It is also not irrelevant because you asked how they could be taxed fairly, and that is what I gave you as an answer. 


If I understand your point you think it is O.K. for the customers of a particular company to pay the taxes for that company but not non-customers. Is that it? If so, I don't see the distinction. If all corporate taxes are paid by customers (my only point from the get-go), it sorta evens out.


Yes to your first point.  For your second, I don't think it does equal out, it depends on the percentage of the population that chooses to do business with each company.  The only fair thing is for a company to pay a fair amount (whatever that is determined to be), charge whatever price they need to and leave it up to the customer as to whether or not they want to buy at that price.


If all customers of all companies pay all the corporate taxes, I can't see where it doesn't all even out.

 

If all companies offering the same product have their taxes paid by their customers - where do you see the customer with some sort of choice?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
446
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
456
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

456 Views
Message 4 of 110

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote "I can't imagine how you can get them to "pay their fair share" since whatever they pay actually is passed along to the consumer via the cost of the goods or services. If you have any ideas as to how to do the fair share thing - let's talk about it."

 
Since companies have been extended the same rights as a "person" their fair share is the same as a person's fair share.
 
Irrelevant. We are not talking about their political status. We are talking about the source of the money they use to pay taxes - the customer.

 


It is not irrelevant when you are forcing consumers to support companies they would not otherwise support.  It is also not irrelevant because you asked how they could be taxed fairly, and that is what I gave you as an answer. 


If I understand your point you think it is O.K. for the customers of a particular company to pay the taxes for that company but not non-customers. Is that it? If so, I don't see the distinction. If all corporate taxes are paid by customers (my only point from the get-go), it sorta evens out.


Yes to your first point.  For your second, I don't think it does equal out, it depends on the percentage of the population that chooses to do business with each company.  The only fair thing is for a company to pay a fair amount (whatever that is determined to be), charge whatever price they need to and leave it up to the customer as to whether or not they want to buy at that price.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
456
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
464
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

464 Views
Message 5 of 110

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote "I can't imagine how you can get them to "pay their fair share" since whatever they pay actually is passed along to the consumer via the cost of the goods or services. If you have any ideas as to how to do the fair share thing - let's talk about it."

 
Since companies have been extended the same rights as a "person" their fair share is the same as a person's fair share.
 
Irrelevant. We are not talking about their political status. We are talking about the source of the money they use to pay taxes - the customer.

 


It is not irrelevant when you are forcing consumers to support companies they would not otherwise support.  It is also not irrelevant because you asked how they could be taxed fairly, and that is what I gave you as an answer. 


If I understand your point you think it is O.K. for the customers of a particular company to pay the taxes for that company but not non-customers. Is that it? If so, I don't see the distinction. If all corporate taxes are paid by customers (my only point from the get-go), it sorta evens out.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
464
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
469
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

469 Views
Message 6 of 110

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote "I can't imagine how you can get them to "pay their fair share" since whatever they pay actually is passed along to the consumer via the cost of the goods or services. If you have any ideas as to how to do the fair share thing - let's talk about it."

 
Since companies have been extended the same rights as a "person" their fair share is the same as a person's fair share.
 
Irrelevant. We are not talking about their political status. We are talking about the source of the money they use to pay taxes - the customer.

 


It is not irrelevant when you are forcing consumers to support companies they would not otherwise support.  It is also not irrelevant because you asked how they could be taxed fairly, and that is what I gave you as an answer. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
469
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
485
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

485 Views
Message 7 of 110

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote "I can't imagine how you can get them to "pay their fair share" since whatever they pay actually is passed along to the consumer via the cost of the goods or services. If you have any ideas as to how to do the fair share thing - let's talk about it."

 
Since companies have been extended the same rights as a "person" their fair share is the same as a person's fair share.
 
Irrelevant. We are not talking about their political status. We are talking about the source of the money they use to pay taxes - the customer.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
485
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
486
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

486 Views
Message 8 of 110

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@KidBoy2 wrote:


When we had a business people would ask about our profit. I would say its not profit it making a living .. hope to make what a worker in the mill makes, hope to make what a school teacher makes..etc....people could understand that.

So paying board members $$Millions$$ and CEOs multiple $$Millions$$ and 400 times more that a worker makes is just "making a living" ??????  Uh ............. the correct answer is NO !


How is that class warfare jazz connected to the fact that the consumers actually pay corporate taxes?

 

Uh.......the correct answer is it isn't.


It's pointing out that the CEOs and board members are paid such ridiculously large amounts that those salaries and bonuses coul absorb much of the cost of taxes going up intead of piling it all on the consumer.

 

Why didn't you call it "class warfare" when Reagan cut taxes on the wealthiest which has cause the greatest income and wealth disparity since the 1700s ?


Ah, you've jumped on the "Regan Taxscam" bandwagon. Do you really believe that execs are paid more by their companies because their personal income tax rate was lowered. That is illogical. 

 

According to Paul Krugman (the economist of the extreme left) the wealth disparity you refer to started in the '70s. Now, do you suppose that some cosmic force predicted the Reagan Presidency and started acting on what was going to happen before it happened? Again - illogical.


I never said that it started with Reagan, it did start before that. But ............. Reagan's cuts were so massive it greatly accelerated the process. You say "illogical", that is only because of the Right Wing logic that you are using.


O.K. so what was your point about Reagan? And if it started in the '70s and continues, what about Carter, Clinton, and Obama - did they contribute to the problem. Or are only Rep able to create problems?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
486
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
489
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

489 Views
Message 9 of 110

@mickstuder wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote"And this is the last time I am going to explain that the issue is not what motivates the consumer to buy. It is not a matter whether or not consumers have a choice. It is much simpler than that - taxes paid are a cost of doing business and are reflected in the price - hence, the consumer pays the taxes (albeit indirectly)."

 

You are forcing consumers to support companies even if they are not buying their products.  It is a matter of choice, whether you want to ackowledge or not.


Let's try to boil this down it the basics. I believe that any taxes a company pays comes from it's cash inflow. The cash inflow comes from the customers. Ergo, it really is the customers money that is paying the taxes.

 

Can we agree on that?


I'm confused?????

 

New Hampshire has No Sales Tax - neighboring Massachusetts has a 6.25% Sales Tax but I frequently find that I can make even major brand name purchases like Vehicles, Furniture & Appliances from a Massachusetts vendor cheaper than in New Hampshire and I live in a Border Town where the NH Prices are always the lowest in the State in order to attract Massachusetts Customers

 

A even bigger source of confusion is GE is headquartered in Boston Ma and they manufacture most of their Medical Imaging Equipment in Wisconsin........................

 

But if you look at the Cost Charged to Patients across the USA for a MRI it ranges from $500 - $15,000 for the same test using the same machine according to one Study

 

Source - http://time.com/money/2995166/why-does-mri-cost-so-much/

 

GE also sells the same Imaging Equipment used in the USA to other Countries around the World

 

Here is a breakdown of the costs for a Cat Scan of a Live Adult Human Head

 

USA - $2000

 

France $212

 

Germany $319

 

Netherlands - $258

 

Spain - $161

MRI Costs.png

 

 

So - I'm having a real hard time with the argument about how the start-up costs to Shareholders and Taxes paid by Companies and the daily price to Consumers have anything at all do with the Prices a Company Charges?

 

Source - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-brad-wright/the-price-of-diagnostic-i_b_361934.html

 

 


I don't know who is arguing the point you allude to. As for me, my point is much more direct and on topic - taxes paid by corporations come from revenues received. Those revenues are paid by the consumer. Hence, the consumer pays the taxes.


Well, if thats true then when the Corporations receive a reduction in Taxes - does the cost to the Consumer decrease?


Separate issue. All I am saying is that the money to pay taxes comes from the consumer - period. Can we agree on that and move on??


Seperate Issue?

 

It'sMiddle Class and the Advantages to the Wealthy and Corporations always a seperate issue when anyone wants to discuss how unfair the Tax Code is and it's unfair burden on the 

 

Consumers paying taxes is and was a sideshow - if Corporations passed their Tax Savings on to consumers it might be relevant - they don;t - they pass them on to their Senior Management and Shareholders -

 

You want to raise a argument that says well shareholders deserve the funds from the Corporations Tax Breaks becuase they contributed the money to start the Companies - GE started in the 1800's - I think those shareholders have been adequately compensated for their investments already as have most large Investment Groups who back startups today

 

It was folks like yourself who took this thread away from what was the Topic Issue

 

Sure - how about we move on to the Subject of the Thread - US Corporations who make HUGE Profits and pay little in Federal Income Taxes - while the Working Poor - The Middle Class - the Elderly - have to pay taxes on all their earnings - do normal people get a few deductions and exemptions - Sure - Do Corporations and the Most Wealthy have the US Tax Code bent way over to benefit them at the expense of these other groups

 

 


Yes,it was a separate issue because it was about how a company deals with tax cuts, not where the money to pay the taxes comes from (the consumer).

 

Just as this whole post is a series of separate issues since it is all about class warfare, shareholder entitlements, profits and where tax cut money goes.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
489
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
498
Views

Re: Profitable US Companies - No Taxes Paid?

498 Views
Message 10 of 110

Lets just look at Trumps recently released 2005 Tax Returns - he made a 150 Million - claimed a 100 Million Dollar Loss and paid taxes of around 30 million - mostly because of the Alternative Minimum Tax if the AMT didn;t exist he would have only paid around 5 Million in taxes

 

So the wealthy get to make poor decisions - lose money - and heres the best part - it's usually other peoples money they lose and then two things happen - like Trump - they get to claim a loss on their tax returns and in many cases they file backruptcy and stiff the lenders and the contractors they owed

 

A Middle Class worker makes a bad decision at their job and they get fired - they don;t get to claim a loss on their taxes - they don;t get to stiff their lenders - they don;t get to go to the State Run Banks in China & Russia and borrow money - they don;t get to go to the Bank of Cypress and borrow money and then appoint one of the Board Members of the Bank of Cypress to be the Commerce Secretary of the United States

 

No - Middle Class Workers make a bad work decison and there is no Gigger in the System that not only shields them from responsibility but rewards them by letting them write-off bad decisions against the legitimate profits from good decisions that should be taxed and normally would be taxed if not for the Sweetheart Loopholes in the IRS Tax Code that skew the entire US Tax System in favor of the wealthy and Corporations

 

 

I

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
498
Views